JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of present petition the petitioner has challenged order bearing S.F.C. No. 38 of 2004 dated 12.02.2004, with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to release all the pecuniary benefits in his favour with effect from 01.04.1996. Vide the impugned order, while directing release of arrears of dues in favour of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1996, a condition has been attached that in case it is found on an enquiry to be conducted by the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner was not working on daily wage basis with the respondent-Corporation for the period for which muster sheets are not available, he shall refund the amount received by him and regularization of his services shall be treated with effect from 01.04.2001 instead of 01.04.1996. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Class-IV employee with the respondent-Corporation on daily wage basis and he was entitled to regularization with effect from 01.04.1996. However, when the respondent did not regularise the petitioner, he filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1241/1997 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of in terms of judgment dated 13.07.2000, whereby a direction was issued to the respondents asking them to take a decision with regard to regularization of services of the petitioner within a period of three months in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 16.08.1998 passed in LPA No. 438/1998. 3. It seems that the aforesaid judgment was not implemented by the respondents, which compelled the petitioner to file a contempt petition, whereafter, the respondents issued order bearing SFC No. 25 of 2001 dated 25.01.2001, whereby the services of the petitioner were regularized as Orderly with effect from 01.04.1996, subject to the condition that he has continuously worked as CDL with effect from 04.06.1988 upto 08/1993. However, it was provided in the said order that regularization of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1996 will have notional effect. 4. The petitioner filed another writ petition bearing SWP No. 793/2001 before this Court claiming therein that he is entitled to monetary benefits and that grant of regularization of his services on notional basis is illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 23.04.2002. 4. The petitioner filed another writ petition bearing SWP No. 793/2001 before this Court claiming therein that he is entitled to monetary benefits and that grant of regularization of his services on notional basis is illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 23.04.2002. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced as under : “After having gone through the pleadings of the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is right in his submission that he should have been granted actual benefits. He had approached this Court by way of writ petition No. 1293/1997. This was because the services of the petitioner were not being regularized. These could have been regularized with effect from 01.04.1996. The petitioner cannot be put to a disadvantageous position merely because the respondents have failed to take a speedy action of their own. They were put into motion only when a decision was given by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is held entitled to actual benefits. As a matter of fact his claims with effect from 01.04.1996 are within limitation when the date on which the earlier petition i.e. SWP No. 1293/1997 was filed. This has been taken into consideration. Let the actual benefits be now released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from today. In case these are not released within the above stipulated period, then the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9%.” 5. It appears that the petitioner had to again file a contempt petition for implementation of the aforesaid order, pursuant whereto impugned order bearing S.F.C. No. 38 of 2004 dated 12.02.2004 came to be issued by the respondent-Corporation. 6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same is violative of the judgment of this Court passed in writ petition bearing SWP No. 793/2001. It has been further contended that there was a clear cut direction of the Court that the petitioner had to be paid monetary benefits with effect from 01.04.1996 and as such, there was no question of attaching any condition for releasing of such benefits in favour of the petitioner. It has been contended that the impugned order is a glaring example of mala fide exercise of powers by the respondent-Corporation. 7. It has been contended that the impugned order is a glaring example of mala fide exercise of powers by the respondent-Corporation. 7. The writ petition has been contested by the respondent-Corporation by filing counter affidavit thereto. In his counter affidavit, it has been submitted that pursuant to the impugned order passed by the respondent-Corporation, Divisional Manager Vigilance has conducted the enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry report, order bearing SFC No. 208 of 2007 dated 06.07.2007 has been issued by the respondent-Corporation. It has been submitted that payment of arrears with effect from 01.04.1996 to 01.04.2001 was to be made to the petitioner only in case it was found after conducting the enquiry that he had actually worked from 04.06.1988 to 8/1993 and as per the report of the Divisional Manager Vigilance, muster sheet for the month of March 1989 is not available, as such, in terms of order dated 06.07.2007 (supra), a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner as to why recovery of arrears drawn by him with effect from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2001 be not effected. It has been contended that the petitioner without filing any reply to the said Show Cause Notice is pursuing the present writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. The claim of the petitioner is that he was engaged on daily wage basis on 04.06.1988 and he has sought regularization of his services in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. Upon consideration of the case of the petitioner pursuant to order dated 13.07.2000 passed in the first writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. SWP No. 1241/1997, the services of the petitioner were regularized as Orderly with notional effect from 01.04.1996 in the light of the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994. In the said order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was engaged as a casual labourer on 04.06.1988. The order whereby the services of the petitioner were regularised incorporates a condition which provides that his regularization is conditional upon his continuous working as CDL with effect from 04.06.1988 to 08/1993. 10. The petitioner challenged order dated 25.01.2001 (supra) so far as it gives notional effect to his regularization by way of another writ petition bearing SWP No. 793/2001. The order whereby the services of the petitioner were regularised incorporates a condition which provides that his regularization is conditional upon his continuous working as CDL with effect from 04.06.1988 to 08/1993. 10. The petitioner challenged order dated 25.01.2001 (supra) so far as it gives notional effect to his regularization by way of another writ petition bearing SWP No. 793/2001. The operative portion of the order dated 23.04.2002 passed in the said writ petition, which has been quoted hereinabove clearly indicates that the petitioner has been held entitled to actual benefits with effect from 01.04.1996. By virtue of the said order, a direction has been issued to the respondents to release the said benefits in favour of the petitioner within three months. There is no conditionality attached to order dated 23.04.2002. 11. It is not the case of the respondent-Corporation that they have challenged the said order before any higher forum. Therefore, respondent-Corporation has no option but to release the monetary benefits in favour of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1996. Instead of doing so, the respondent-Corporation issued impugned order dated 12.02.2004, whereby while releasing monetary benefits in favour of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1996, the respondent-Corporation directed holding of an enquiry to determine whether the petitioner had worked on daily wage basis during the period August 1988, March 1989, 01.06.1993 to 27.6.1993 and 28.07.1993 to 31.08.1993. In view of the clear cut direction passed by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2002 in SWP No. 793/2001, there was no occasion for the respondent-Corporation to attach any condition to the release of the arrears with effect from 01.04.1996 in favour of the petitioner. Impugned order dated 12.02.2004 is, therefore, palpably in the teeth of directions of this Court passed in SWP No. 793/2001. On this ground alone, the impugned order, to the extent of holding an enquiry and making the release of monetary benefits in favour of the petitioner subject to the outcome of the said enquiry, is not sustainable in law. 12. Apart from the above, even the report of the Divisional Manager Vigilance, Enquiry Officer does not come to the aid of the respondent-Corporation. 12. Apart from the above, even the report of the Divisional Manager Vigilance, Enquiry Officer does not come to the aid of the respondent-Corporation. As per the said report, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced in SFC Order No. 208 of 2007 dated 06.07.2007, the muster sheet of 8/1988 was available in terms whereof, wages have been paid in September 1988, whereas muster sheet for the month of March 1989 paid in 04/1989 is not available. The report nowhere indicates that name of the petitioner does not figure in the muster sheets that were available with the respondent-Corporation. If the muster sheets for a particular period are not available with the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer consequences thereof. The Divisional Manager Vigilance in terms of the impugned order dated 12.02.2004 was to go into the details of the case, particularly regarding whether the petitioner was working on daily wage basis during the period August 1988, March 1989, 01.06.1993 to 27.06.1993 and 28.07.1993 to 31.08.1993. It was further provided in the said order that arrears of monetary benefits are to be paid subject to the condition that in case it is found on enquiry that the petitioner was not working on daily wage basis with the Corporation for the period the muster sheets are not available, he shall refund the amount received by him. 13. Thus, for coming to a conclusion that the petitioner was not actually working on daily wage basis with the respondent-Corporation during the aforesaid period, in the absence of the muster sheets, some evidence had to be brought on record to show that the petitioner was not working during the period. The respondent-Corporation has not produced any material or any evidence either before the enquiry officer or before this Court to even remotely suggest that the petitioner was not working with the respondent-Corporation during the aforesaid period. Thus, even if we go by the conditions contained in the impugned order dated 12.02.2004, which is in teeth of judgment of this Court passed in SWP No. 793/2001, still then the respondent-Corporation cannot seek refund of monetary benefits that have been paid to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2001. 14. Thus, even if we go by the conditions contained in the impugned order dated 12.02.2004, which is in teeth of judgment of this Court passed in SWP No. 793/2001, still then the respondent-Corporation cannot seek refund of monetary benefits that have been paid to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2001. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order bearing SFC No. 38/2004 dated 12.02.2004 to the extent it provides for recovery of arrears of monetary benefits from the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2001, is quashed.